The Primaries Paradox

Politics
I'm a political strategist, pollster, author and commentator.

Ted Cruz is running for President of the United States.

The announcement of the first candidate is no great shock. Cruz has been positioning himself for some time, and is a consistently outspoken voice on the conservative cause du jour.

While many are quick to write Cruz off in the GOP primary, they do so at their own risk. Granted, Cruz is no coalition builder. He has few allies in the Senate, and it’s been widely reported that even other conservative senators have had more than their fill of the gentleman from Texas. But by launching his campaign at the Jerry Falwell-founded Liberty University, Cruz shows that he is craftier than he lets on.

Today’s big tent Republican party has four corners. There are the more moderate business conservatives who championed Mitt Romney. There are the libertarians, who until recently seemed sure to gather behind Rand Paul. There are the evangelicals, the “religious right,” who four years ago favored Rick Santorum, and Mike Huckabee four years before that. And there is, of course, the Tea Party.

As no one can decide on who or what the Tea Party is, it is hard to label any candidate a Tea Party favorite. And yet, according to most everyone, a Tea Party favorite is exactly what Ted Cruz is. And by announcing at Liberty University, Cruz seems intent on becoming a favorite of the religious right, too. A candidate who wields the power of both the Tea Party and the religious right is a force to be reckoned with.

We can expect more announcements in the coming weeks, notably from Rand Paul and even maybe GOP establishment favorite Jeb Bush. It follows that the Republican primary is shaping up to get very messy. Declared and undeclared candidates are fighting for top staff and donors, taking pot shots at one another on cable news, and vying for the soul of the party.

The fact that it will be a competitive primary for the Republicans is a double-edged sword. This is true for a number of reasons. Any time you have a competitive primary, it emphasizes the divisions within the party. This battle will be contentious, notwithstanding the effort to have a nominee as early as possible. And given that the Democrats only have one candidate gaining any traction in Hillary Clinton, the Democrats then have a demonstrable advantage.

Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the Center for American Progress in Washington, DC. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

It’s a demonstrable advantage for a couple of reasons. Hillary is clearly not ready for prime time. She doesn’t have a strategy or message that she has articulated. That said, she remains in the lead, a lead she is unlikely to relinquish unless and until the Republicans coalesce behind a candidate or the former secretary of state makes an unforced error that substantially weakens her poll numbers – something that has yet to happen to date.

The chance that somebody formidable runs against her like Elizabeth Warren exists.

But as of now, she isn’t. So Hillary can choose to delay her announcement or her articulation of a strategy unless she’s pressed to do it. The longer she waits and if there’s no challenger, will mean that the Democrat base will be less excited and motivated than the GOP base who have no ideas or message to get amped up about. Their divisions are all that people see and despite their control of both houses, they show no inclination to articulate a consistent philosophy on the economy, healthcare or immigration.

Hopefully for their sake the Republicans will come to a unified message out of this. The risk, of course, is that with a divided field of maybe up to 12 candidates they could end up more divided and message-less than they began. At the same time, it will motivate voters almost certainly to turn out in the primaries and general, something Romney lacked in the 2012 election.

If only this were the case for Democrats. While an easy primary for Clinton may mean an easier time in the general election, it has a deleterious impact on Democratic primary voters. The now scandal-prone Clinton is already stumbling, and she’s not even off the block yet.

Just a few days ago, it was discovered that Clinton had gone back on a promise to disclose donors to an organization the Clinton family runs. In 2008, Clinton promised that she would voluntarily disclose all donors to what is now called the Clinton Health Access Initiative. She did not.

Disclosing the information was important, as it would ensure that individuals and foreign governments were not donating funds to the organization to curry favor with Clinton. But while donations were disclosed through 2010, Clinton neglected to honor the promise since that time. Even now, with spokespeople admitting that not disclosing the information was “a mistake,” they will only release a partial list of donors, which incidentally includes donors from at least seven foreign governments.

If voters can’t get information from Clinton that she promised to give and can’t get information from Clinton that she is legally obligated to provide, then what are the odds that she offers herself up on issues where she is not so bound? Without an opponent, will Hillary position herself on such divisive issues as the Keystone Pipeline? The Trans-Pacific Partnership and Trade Promotion Authority? How about the role of organized labor?

Probably not. And Democrats are starting to realize this.

Last week, nearly thirty former and current Democratic lawmakers in New Hampshire signed an open letter urging Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren to run. The senior senator from Massachusetts is the darling of the progressive left, and would pose a serious threat to the embattled former secretary of state. But Warren continues to insist that she is not running, and unlike the usual kabuki, she actually seems to mean it.

So the search continues. Former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley has been making loud noises about running, but it’s unclear who exactly cares. Jim Webb, the former senator from Virginia, has been exploring a bid as well. But Webb, too, is struggling to find either his footing or his audience. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, a socialist, says he may run. While he appeals to a component of the Democratic base that is largely disenfranchised, it’s hard to see Sanders’ campaign going far.

All this is to say that there’s room in the Democrat field for a challenger and they’d certainly be welcome. Unless someone steps up to make a meaningful run at Hillary Clinton, the real loser in this election will be Democrats, even if they win.